Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:58:23.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of winter barley cultivars to nitrogen and a plant growth regulator in relation to lodging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. M. White
E. M. White
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Plant Testing Station, Crossnacreevy, Belfast, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Applications of nitrogen and a plant growth regulator (mepiquat chloride and ethephon) were used to manipulate stem structure and induce differing degrees of damage due to leaning and lodging in six cultivars of winter barley grown in Belfast, UK, in 1986/87. Weighted incidences of leaning and lodging were combined to give an index indicating damage susceptibility of the cultivars. The index was very high (70) in Pipkin and ranged between 1 and 18 in the other cultivars. Differences between cultivars in number of internodes, plant height and stem weight did not explain their differences in resistance to damage. However, dry weight per unit length ranged from 2·35 and 2·34 mg/mm in the strongest cultivars, Panda and Jennifer, respectively, to 1·75 mg/mm in the weakest cultivar, Pipkin.

Nitrogen application increased plant height but did not affect dry weight/main stem, so that dry weight/unit length of stem decreased. The growth regulator treatments reduced plant height and although dry weight/stem did not decrease significantly, dry weight/unit length of stem was similar in treated and untreated plots.

Dry weight/unit length has potential as an objective indicator of straw strength in winter barley cultivars and could be used in cultivar evaluation in the absence of damage in field trials.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 116 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 191 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bose, R. D., Aziz, N. & Bhatnagar, M. P. (1937). Studies in Indian barleys. IV. The inheritance of some anatomical characters responsible for lodging and some ear-head characters in an interspecific cross between two Pusa barleys. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 7, 48–88.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. (1978). Barley. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Dunn, G. J. & Briggs, K. G. (1989). Variation in culm anatomy among barley cultivars differing in lodging resistance. Canadian Journal of Botany 67, 1838–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Appleyard, M. (1984). Cereal Development Guide, 2nd edn.Stoneleigh, UK: National Agricultural Centre.Google Scholar
Meteorological Office (1988). Monthly and Annual Totals of Rainfall 1985 for the United Kingdom. Bracknell, UK: Meteorological Office.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1986). Classified List of Cereal Varieties England and Wales 1986/87. Cambridge: NIAB.Google Scholar
Neenan, M. & Spencer-Smith, J. L. (1975). An analysis of the problem of lodging with particular reference to wheat and barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanca, A. M., Jenkins, G. & Hanson, P. R. (1979). Varietal responses in spring barley to natural and artificial lodging and to a growth regulator. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 449–456.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.Google Scholar